* Fam Zheng (f...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On Tue, 08/22 10:56, Peter Xu wrote:
> > I haven't really encountered (c), but I think it's the migrate_cancel
> > command that matters, which should not need BQL as well.
>
> There is bdrv_invalidate_cache_all() in migrate_cancel which clearly isn't
> safe.
On Tue, 08/22 09:29, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Fam Zheng (f...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > On Tue, 08/22 13:59, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:15:19PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 08/22 10:56, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > > > I haven't really encountered (c), but I think it
* Fam Zheng (f...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On Tue, 08/22 13:59, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:15:19PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > > On Tue, 08/22 10:56, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > > I haven't really encountered (c), but I think it's the migrate_cancel
> > > > command that matters, which sho
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 02:33:48PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Tue, 08/22 13:59, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:15:19PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > > On Tue, 08/22 10:56, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > > I haven't really encountered (c), but I think it's the migrate_cancel
> > > > command t
On Tue, 08/22 13:59, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:15:19PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > On Tue, 08/22 10:56, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > I haven't really encountered (c), but I think it's the migrate_cancel
> > > command that matters, which should not need BQL as well.
> >
> > There is bdr
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 09:51:47PM -0700, no-re...@patchew.org wrote:
[...]
> TESTtests/qapi-schema/doc-duplicated-return.out
> TESTtests/qapi-schema/doc-duplicated-since.out
> TESTtests/qapi-schema/doc-empty-arg.out
> TESTtests/qapi-schema/doc-empty-section.out
> TEST
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 12:15:19PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Tue, 08/22 10:56, Peter Xu wrote:
> > I haven't really encountered (c), but I think it's the migrate_cancel
> > command that matters, which should not need BQL as well.
>
> There is bdrv_invalidate_cache_all() in migrate_cancel which
Hi,
This series failed automatic build test. Please find the testing commands and
their output below. If you have docker installed, you can probably reproduce it
locally.
Type: series
Message-id: 1503301464-27886-1-git-send-email-pet...@redhat.com
Subject: [Qemu-devel] [RFC 0/6] monitor: allow
On Tue, 08/22 10:56, Peter Xu wrote:
> I haven't really encountered (c), but I think it's the migrate_cancel
> command that matters, which should not need BQL as well.
There is bdrv_invalidate_cache_all() in migrate_cancel which clearly isn't safe.
Is that if block unreachable in this case? If so
On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 10:15:56AM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Mon, 08/21 18:28, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > > It's not much more than asserting qemu_mutex_iothread_locked(), the
> > > problem is
> > > the new monitor thread breaks certain assumptions that was true.
> > >
> > > What is int
On Mon, 08/21 18:28, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > It's not much more than asserting qemu_mutex_iothread_locked(), the problem
> > is
> > the new monitor thread breaks certain assumptions that was true.
> >
> > What is interesting in this is that block layer's nested aio_poll() now not
> > o
* Fam Zheng (f...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On Mon, 08/21 16:36, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > * Fam Zheng (f...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > > On Mon, 08/21 18:05, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 04:58:51PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, 08/21 15:44, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > > > >
On Mon, 08/21 16:36, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> * Fam Zheng (f...@redhat.com) wrote:
> > On Mon, 08/21 18:05, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 04:58:51PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 08/21 15:44, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > > > This is an extended work for migration postcopy
* Fam Zheng (f...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On Mon, 08/21 18:05, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 04:58:51PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > > On Mon, 08/21 15:44, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > > This is an extended work for migration postcopy recovery. This series
> > > > is tested with the following se
* Fam Zheng (f...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On Mon, 08/21 11:17, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> > From previous discussions we've had, one suggestion was to have some
> > type of 'safe' command; once issued in a thread, the monitor thread
> > would only allow other lock-free commands to be issued; it s
On Mon, 08/21 11:17, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote:
> From previous discussions we've had, one suggestion was to have some
> type of 'safe' command; once issued in a thread, the monitor thread
> would only allow other lock-free commands to be issued; it stops any
> accidents of them issuing unsafe c
On Mon, 08/21 18:05, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 04:58:51PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > On Mon, 08/21 15:44, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > This is an extended work for migration postcopy recovery. This series
> > > is tested with the following series to make sure it solves the monitor
> > > h
* Peter Xu (pet...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 04:58:51PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> > On Mon, 08/21 15:44, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > This is an extended work for migration postcopy recovery. This series
> > > is tested with the following series to make sure it solves the monitor
> > >
On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 04:58:51PM +0800, Fam Zheng wrote:
> On Mon, 08/21 15:44, Peter Xu wrote:
> > This is an extended work for migration postcopy recovery. This series
> > is tested with the following series to make sure it solves the monitor
> > hang problem that we have encountered for postco
On Mon, 08/21 15:44, Peter Xu wrote:
> This is an extended work for migration postcopy recovery. This series
> is tested with the following series to make sure it solves the monitor
> hang problem that we have encountered for postcopy recovery:
>
> [RFC 00/29] Migration: postcopy failure recover
This is an extended work for migration postcopy recovery. This series
is tested with the following series to make sure it solves the monitor
hang problem that we have encountered for postcopy recovery:
[RFC 00/29] Migration: postcopy failure recovery
[RFC 0/6] migration: re-use migrate_incomin
21 matches
Mail list logo
